From: Oliver Bandel <oliver@first.in-berlin.de>
To: Simon Cruanes <simon.cruanes.2007@m4x.org>
Cc: caml-list@inria.fr
Subject: Re: [Caml-list] Build-/Installation-Tools - not enogh of them?
Date: Tue, 27 Nov 2018 16:49:29 +0100
Message-ID: <20181127154929.h2sdvjhwzyyfwior@first.in-berlin.de> (raw)
In-Reply-To: <20181127150629.GC1374@carty>
Quoting Simon Cruanes <simon.cruanes.2007@m4x.org> (snt: 2018-11-27 16:06 +0100 CET) (rcv: 2018-11-27 16:06 +0100 CET):
> Le Tue, 27 Nov 2018, Oliver Bandel wrote:
> > OK, so after you know OCaml,
> > then you have to learn opam,
> > and after that, dune is just another tool that people have to know.
>
> Well you need to build your software. My packages tend to have a super
> simple makefile around dune, because I'm used to type `make`
That's the one thing I asked for in the thread-starting email.
So, then you are not meant to be addressed.
> but
> claiming one can write modern OCaml without learning a bit how to build
> it is naive at best.
Don't know why you are so aggressive here.
It's the problem, that the number of tools evolving around OCaml
is growing and growing, and some developers, who already are used in one of them use
them without writing the nice Makefile as a wrapper.
So, if you want to write packages for the OS's, and if you know one of the tools,
it's not enough. You have to know them all, just to create the package.
That's an extra effort for the one who wants to package, just because the
developer who already knows it's tool of choice is not willing to wrap the
stuff into a Makefile.
The minimal effort on the one single side is avoided, and that creates a lot of trouble in several other places.
> It's like *any* other language, you got to learn a
> bit of tooling (even python — good luck with pip or conda — or javascript
> with its pile of tools that change all the time. Oh and what about
> cmake?)
>
> > But if you just want to use OCaml for your programming,
> > why additionally need to learn opam and now dune?
>
> Because `ocamlopt foo.ml -o foo` won't scale.
I'm happy with OCamlMakefile.
So I don't need to `ocamlopt foo.ml -o foo` by hand.
Maybe it's better to abstain from native OS-packages of a lot of OCaml-software,
just because it's the "not-naive way" to insist, that people who
would like to package software of others have to have the need for learning
a lot of tools they would not use otherwise, instead of asking those who know the tools already,
to write a Makefile (which they also already know how to do that).
It's the way, how to produce work for others. (Some kind of sadistic attitude, it seems (thougthless at best).)
Ciao,
Oliver
--
Caml-list mailing list. Subscription management and archives:
https://sympa.inria.fr/sympa/arc/caml-listhttps://inbox.ocaml.org/caml-list
Forum: https://discuss.ocaml.org/
Bug reports: http://caml.inria.fr/bin/caml-bugs